Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Businesses must have a strategy for a messy tomorrow
John Kim is a Senior Lecturer in Organization & Management at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University. He is a management consultant with more than 20 years of experience working with executives to make difficult decisions and implement sustainable change. Recently, John published a piece that details a ‘Strategy for a messy tomorrow’ where he outlines how businesses must have a strategy development and implementation for an unpredictable business world. The piece is attached and a must read, especially in these turbulent and unpredictable economic times. In the article, he focuses on three key points: 1.Beware of False Choices “One thing we try to teach here at the business school is to be careful of false choices. Business is incredibly dynamic. Every industry is now a technology business, and the corporate playbook that evolved to protect profits is quite outdated.” Kim notes that Thomas Friedman poetically described this new normal in his 2005 book The World is Flat, and over the last 15 years, competition has only accelerated because of the explosion of two resources: cheap money and data. Kim notes that it’s a great environment to start or fund a business because interest rates have been low for the last 10+ years. There are dozens of new entrants in all industries, and all parts of the value chain, who are often well-funded, flexible, and are not weighed down by legacy business models and assets. The big winners are the customers who have increasing choice, lower prices, and great value capture. 2.The Challenging Environment From his corporate experience, Kim sees two significant challenges to strategy implementation. First, senior leaders turn over quickly. “It’s hard to have consistency of vision and leadership and implementation when there is such a movement in the C-suite with someone moving in and someone moving out every 5–6 months. So, it’s not a surprise that a lot of strategies either don’t follow through or there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and strategy gets a little bit muddled as a result.” Secondly, when the strategy does eventually make it to the ground-floor and needs to be executed, things have often moved on, and the market responses are rarely the ones you expect. Riffing on Peter Drucker’s famous quote on uncertainty, Kim explains to his students that, “Instead of trying to think of something brilliant to do tomorrow, why don’t you think of something very actionable today that prepares us for what we know will be a totally messy, crazy, unpredictable tomorrow.” 3.A Business Executive’s Response The business executive’s job is to not only set the direction, build a climate of trust, and create the energy for change—but also to be willing to test the assumptions and constraints around a given problem. Increasingly the answers will lie outside of a given industry, and thus require leaders to be broader in their horizon-scanning and more open to alternative paths forward. If you are interested in learning more about why business do indeed need a a strategy for a messy tomorrow – the let us help. John Kim is available to speak regarding this topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
More than just money – what corporate America needs to do to motivate today’s workforce
In a modern workplace no longer characterized by rigid hierarchies and where power is more diffused, traditional methods of motivation may no longer be enough. We have come to understand the value of providing people with ‘intrinsic motivation’ – a sense of purpose, the importance of creative, interesting work, and maintaining work-life balance. We have naturally moved away from a sole dependence on monetary incentives. However, in a New York Times opinion piece, management author Alfie Kohn asserts that “science has confirmed” that monetary rewards amount to “bribes” that don’t work. Somehow this doesn’t ring true. Has science really confirmed this? Would businesses continue to incentivize performance with monetary rewards if they did not work? And aren’t we all, at least to some extent, motivated by money? To understand if Kohn is right, or if there is a more nuanced answer, Karen Sedatole, Professor of Accounting at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says we need to look at patterns of human behavior. The classical economic theory, which gave us ‘homo economicus,’ assumes people always behave in a rational way and, as with Gordon Gekko in the ‘Wall Street’ movies, selfishness predominates. Findings from psychology and particularly behavioral economics have started to show this to be incorrect. In fact, people tend to make illogical choices contrary to self-interest. Our capacity to think – via a mix of deep reflective thinking and rapid automatic thinking – can lead us to what economists might consider to be irrational behaviors – albeit with the cognitive biases behind our thinking staying mostly predictable. Do monetary incentives work? We all value money, but our perception of its value is influenced by the importance that we also place on reciprocity and fairness, social norms, trust, and trustworthiness. When it comes to monetary rewards for performance the results will also greatly depend on the quality of the performance measures, along with the type of task being rewarded, and the type of reward. Contrary to Kohn’s assertion, Sedatole points out there are many real-world examples that show monetary incentives can deliver big performance and productivity improvements. In fact, if uncontrolled, bonus incentives can be too powerful a motivator, causing damage – as the UK’s PPI and the Wells Fargo mis-selling scandals both firmly attest. There is also strong academic evidence that monetary rewards can have a positive effect, and equally strong evidence that, when over-used, they can elicit bad behavior. Based on relevant academic research in this area, Sedatole identifies four core principles for the use of monetary incentives: Payment for performance can certainly lead to people making a greater effort than when they are rewarded by salary alone, but only if these core principles are followed: 1. Performance targets – Performance targets should be difficult to hit but not too difficult. 2. Performance metrics – The way performance is measured should be sensitive to the employees’ perceptions and sense of control. Employees should believe that their increased effort improves performance, improved performance leads to greater reward, and reward is valued. Metrics must be precise and not prejudiced by external factors. And, from the organization’s perspective, metrics should be set to meet its objectives. 3. Fairness and social norms – Monetary rewards must be seen to be fair and to comply across organizations. They should also conform to social norms. 4. Characteristics of the task – The efficacy of monetary incentives can depend on the nature of the task and to what extent the task provides intrinsic incentives. Here Alfie Kohn has a point; in some cases, monetary rewards tend to undermine intrinsic incentives. ‘Boring’ tasks have little or no intrinsic motivation, whereas creative tasks – the work of a physician, designer, scientist, etc. – are intrinsically motivating. Where there is intrinsic motivation money can be less relevant and in extreme cases can be seen to devalue the intrinsic factors. Professor Sedatole’s recent webinar: ‘Irrational but Predictable! When to Use Monetary Incentives to Motivate Employees’ explains her findings in further details: simply visit it to view and watch for here: If you are journalist covering this topic – Professor Sedatole is available to speak with reporters – simply click on her icon today to arrange an interview.
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- During the pandemic, the amount of screen time for many people working and learning from home as well as binge-watching TV has sharply increased. New research finds that wearing blue-light glasses just before sleeping can lead to a better night's sleep and contribute to a better day's work to follow. "We found that wearing blue-light-filtering glasses is an effective intervention to improve sleep, work engagement, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and reduced counterproductive work behavior," said Cristiano L. Guarana, assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. "Wearing blue-light-filtering glasses creates a form of physiologic darkness, thus improving both sleep quantity and quality." Most of the technology we commonly use -- such as computer screens, smartphones and tablets -- emits blue light, which past research has found can disrupt sleep. Workers have become more dependent on these devices, especially as we navigate remote work and school during the coronavirus pandemic. The media have recently reported on the benefits of blue-light glasses for those spending a lot of time in front of a computer screen. This new research extends understanding of the circadian rhythm, a natural, internal process that regulates the sleep-wake cycle and repeats roughly every 24 hours. "In general, the effects of wearing blue-light-filtering glasses were stronger for 'night owls' than for 'morning larks,' said Guarana, who previously has studied how lack of sleep affects business decisions, relationships and other behaviors in organizations. "Owls tend to have sleep periods later in the day, whereas larks tend to have sleep periods early in the day. "Although most of us can benefit from reducing our exposure to blue light, owl employees seem to benefit more because they encounter greater misalignments between their internal clock and the externally controlled work time. Our model highlights how and when wearing blue-light-filtering glasses can help employees to live and work better." The findings appear in the paper, "The Effects of Blue-Light Filtration on Sleep and Work Outcomes," published online by the Journal of Applied Psychology. Guarana is the corresponding author; his co-authors are Christopher Barnes and Wei Jee Ong of the University of Washington. The research found that daily engagement and performance of tasks may be related to more underlying biological processes such as the circadian process. "Our research pushes the chronotype literature to consider the relationship between the timing of circadian processes and employees' performance," the researchers wrote. A good night's sleep not only benefits workers; it also helps their employers' bottom lines. "This study provides evidence of a very cost-effective means of improving employee sleep and work outcomes, and the implied return on investment is gigantic," said Barnes, professor of management and the Evert McCabe Endowed Fellow at the University of Washington's Foster School of Business. "I personally do not know of any other interventions that would be that powerful at that low of a cost." Across two studies, researcher collected data from 63 company managers and 67 call center representatives at Brazil-based offices for a U.S. multinational financial firm and measured task performance from clients. Participants were randomly chosen to test glasses that filtered blue light or those that were placebo glasses. "Employees are often required to work early mornings, which may lead to a misalignment between their internal clock and the externally controlled work time," the researchers said, adding that their analyses showed a general pattern that blue-light filtration can have a cumulative effect on key performance variables, at least in the short term. "Blue-light exposure should also be of concern to organizations," Guarana said. "The ubiquity of the phenomenon suggests that control of blue-light exposure may be a viable first step for organizations to protect the circadian cycles of their employees from disruption." Researchers received no financial support or compensation for this research. The glasses were donated by the Austin, Texas-based company Swanwick.
You might have heard of the beer distribution game. The idea is that a group of participants enact a four-stage supply chain scenario. Some take on the role of those at the point of origin in the supply chain – the upstream agents: manufacturers and distributors. Others role-play the downstream agents at the other end of the chain – the distributors and end-customers: in this case, let’s say the bar owners and beer drinkers. The goal is simple. All you have to do is produce, deliver and sell the beer to your customers, while keeping your costs on back orders and inventory to a minimum. This should be easy enough, in theory. The basic rules of economics suggest that customer demand dictates supply. In practice, however, things can get a little skewed. And this disconnect can happen fast. For a start, players have limited information. They can only see what’s in front of them – bits of paper with order numbers. And as they start to share this information with each other, all kinds of coordination issues arise. Things start to go wrong. Customer demand for X or Y kegs of beer is imperfectly relayed to the bar owner retailer, who in turn passes it on the other players upstream, but makes mistakes in doing so. The result is a kind of Chinese Whispers where confusion reigns, poor decisions are made about stock, too much or too little beer is manufactured or supplied. You end up with increased costs in the supply chain, and, not to mention thirsty beer drinkers. The beer game is just that – a game. But it represents a problem that is all too familiar to suppliers in most industries and sectors. It’s called the Bullwhip effect, and it’s a conundrum. “The Bullwhip effect is a real challenge for suppliers in every industry,” said Nikolay Osadchiy, associate professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Goizueta Business School. “Because demand information gets distorted along the chain, suppliers can see a lot of volatility at their end which can translate into more inventory and drives up costs. It’s a really pressing issue that needs to be addressed.” Osadchiy and his colleagues Bill Schmidt from Cornell University and Jing Wu from the Chinese University of Hong Kong got to work researching the idea. First, they modeled a supply network based on 15 years of data from publicly traded companies across the globe. Second, they determined the ‘upstreamness’ that different firms had – or the positions they occupy – within that network. And third, they examined the demand distortion within each firm and measured demand variability across the different layers of the network to determine how they affect each other. The results of their work were all captured in the article attached below – the information was quite compelling and will greatly assist businesses as they plan their way through and after a globe-shifting event like COVID-19. It’s interesting material for sure – and if you are a journalist looking to know more about supply chains and how businesses will need to adapt in order to survive post-pandemic, then let our experts help with your questions and coverage. Nikolay Osadchiy is an Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. He is an acclaimed expert in the areas of supply chain management and how supply networks affect risk and operational performance. Nikolay is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
As the persistent turmoil of protests grips America on an almost daily basis, people are becoming more aware of issues, getting engaged and taking sides. Be it around the dinner table debating, marching in the streets or even arguing on a national news panel – topics like Black Lives Matter, masks during COVID, the upcoming election or a host of other hot-topic issues are all part of the American conversation these days. It’s easy and even healthy for people to debate the issues – but for a business to pick a side on a controversial topic, it’s a much different picture. One recent example was Nike’s support of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. However, Nike also had the resources to bolster their support. They had a multi-million-dollar ad budget, a public relations machine generating hours of earned media – and the company was, for the most part playing to its core audience. Though there was push-back, Nike was rewarded with increased sales and its stock surged. For almost a decade now, Chick-fil-A has also boldly taken a stance with its opinion on gay marriage. The restaurant chain has faced mountains of negative press and protests, but the fast-food giant’s bottom lined never suffered. It still sees sales over 10 billion a year. For Nike and Chik-Fil-A and their deep pockets to wade into the fray with an opinion – it’s one thing, but for a small business to share how it feels, there’s a matter of weighing risk versus reward no matter how important the topic might be. “It may well be that it’s harder for entrepreneurs to create a viable business model for their venture in a more polarized context, says Giacomo Negro, a Professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. “If your business is more hybrid—if you’re supportive of a cause without being overtly affiliated with it—then it could be harder to engage other customers or clients who are uncomfortable doing business with a firm that is even vaguely linked to a specific social group or movement. Similarly, the core supporters of the cause can look at the same organization as not authentically engaged with them.” His findings certainly suggest that existing in a “gray zone,” where you take neither one side or the other, is a hard place for organizations to thrive in times of social change. “If protest activates the cultural boundary surrounding a group’s identity, then increasing protest participation will threaten the viability of precisely those organizations trying to engage inside and outside audiences,” Negro said. “At the same time, bridging inside and outside audiences also conveys a confusing identity and a more limited commitment to pursuing goals relevant to either audience.” With a global pandemic impacting all aspects of national and local economies – small businesses are under pressure to sustain and survive like never before. And if you are a journalist looking to cover the state of small businesses in America and whether or not small business has a role to play in protests and politics in America – then let our experts help with your coverage. Giacomo Negro is a Professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and is an expert in the area of economic sociology. His resent research study research study, “Which Side Are You On? The Divergent Effects of Protest Participation on Organizations Affiliated with Identity Groups’ focuses on this very subject. Professor Negro is available to speak with media about this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
Workplaces are changing – and with America adjusting and adapting to the new realities of COVID-19, how teams are managed and how leaders are portrayed is also in a state of evolution. Georgia Southern’s Steven Charlier was recently interviewed by the BBC – and was featured in an article that focused on the differences between leadership skills and how they come across in-person and on-line. “Fifteen years ago, Steven Charlier, chair of management at Georgia Southern University in the U.S., had a hunch that in-person charisma and leadership skills don’t translate virtually. “Before I became an academic, I worked for IBM for a number of years on a lot of virtual teams,” he says. “I had a boss who was a wonderful guy and great manager, and he drove me crazy trying to communicate. He was incredibly slow and unresponsive.” This seed of professional vexation has borne fruit, with new data showing that the confidence, intelligence and extroversion that have long propelled ambitious workers into the executive suite are not enough online, because they simply don’t translate into virtual leadership. Instead, workers who are organised, dependable and productive take the reins of virtual teams. Finally, doers lead the pack – at least remotely. Georgia Southern’s Charlier is not surprised to find a wide gulf between the behaviors of in-person and remote leaders. “In any leadership role, you’ve got to establish that trust. It’s trusting that the person is going to do things,and trusting that they’re telling the truth and being up front and honest. But how you go about doing that virtually is a little different – it’s a different skill set.” This is a fascinating topic and one that will be top of mind as America begins a new era of remote working. And if you are a journalist looking to follow up on this topic – then let our experts help. Steven Charlier is an expert in project management and virtual teams on project-based work and how technology influences how we work and lead within organizations. He’s available to speak with media about this very interesting topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
In the introduction to his new book, Greg Fisher and his co-authors note that strategy used to be the domain of only those at the very top of an organization. Many would attend management retreats and forget what was discussed soon afterward, much like unfulfilled New Year’s resolutions. “It used to be that strategy happened at off-site retreats, often coupled with golf, cigars and scotch. It used to be that strategy was only discussed as part of an annual planning cycle … was about grand, long-term plans that stretched way into the future,” they wrote. “Strategy was largely cerebral.” Fisher, the Larry and Barbara Sharpf Professor and an associate professor of entrepreneurship at the IU Kelley School of Business, says those days are over. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic began seemingly disrupting every aspect of life, including business processes, the rapid pace of social change meant that companies could no longer wait or slowly adjust. His book, “Strategy in 3D: Essential Tools to Diagnose, Decide & Deliver (Oxford University Press),” co-authored with two former Kelley School faculty members, presents insights into how companies can broaden and include more people in the strategic process. “Anyone with career ambition in the business world needs to become a strategist. We hope this book will serve as a useful resource for everyone willing to take that leap,” he wrote along with John Wisneski of Arizona State University’s W.P. Carrey School of Business and Rene Bakker of Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University. The first section of the book discusses strategic concepts and ideas and how they can be enacted in different ways and at different levels of an organization. Then they discuss the “three elements that are central to being strategic within a business – the 3Ds of diagnose, decide and deliver.” The second section outlines tools that should be part of any manager’s strategy toolbox. The authors see strategy as being about diagnosing a wide array of complex issues or opportunities facing organizations, deciding on solutions to address those challenges or opportunities and then taking action. But the process of forming such strategies is messy. “There are no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to applying tools in tandem,” they note in the book’s conclusion. “What does stand out, though, is that making combinations that ‘click’ with the specific problem in focus adds more value than simply adding tools in isolation.” The book’s 218 pages cover a great deal, but here are three important takeaways from Fisher, Wisneski and Bakker: Let the problem define the parameters – Preconceived preferences for certain tools or frameworks offer fewer useful insights than the application of tools developed to address specific issues. “In other words, start from the problem or question you face,” they said. Combine strategic tools that offer complementary insights – It makes sense to select tools that will investigate different sides of a problem, “making sure no stone is left unturned.” It makes sense to often include at least one external and internal strategic tool in tandem. “We want to know generally whether this new market is attractive, but the more important question is whether the market is also attractive for us,” they said. “Strategists are everywhere,” Fisher and his co-authors write. “We are aligned in our dismissal of the view of the chief executive as the almighty, all-knowing strategy designer.”
Racial and LGBT bias persists in ridesharing drivers despite mitigation efforts
Despite efforts by ridesharing companies to eliminate or reduce discrimination, research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business finds that racial and LGBT bias persists among drivers. Platforms such as Uber, Lyft and Via responded to drivers' biased behavior by removing information that could indicate a rider's gender and race from initial ride requests. However, researchers still found that biases against underrepresented groups and those who indicate support for the LGBT community continued to exist after drivers accepted a ride request -- when the rider's picture would then be displayed. In other words, their efforts shifted some of the biased behavior until after the ride was confirmed, resulting in higher cancellation rates. Understanding whether bias has been removed also is important for ridesharing companies as they not only compete against each other but also with traditional transportation options. "Our results confirm that bias at the ride request stage has been removed. However, after ride acceptance, racial and LGBT biases are persistent, while we found no evidence of gender biases," said Jorge Mejia, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies. "We show that signaling support for a social cause -- in our case, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community -- can also impact service provision. Riders who show support for the LGBT community, regardless of race or gender, also experience significantly higher cancelation rates." Mejia and co-author Chris Parker, assistant professor in the information technology and analytics department at American University in Washington, believe they are the first to use support for social causes as a bias-enabling characteristic. Their article, "When Transparency Fails: Bias and Financial Incentives in Ridesharing Platforms," is published in Management Science. They performed a field experiment on a ridesharing platform in fall 2018 in Washington, D.C. They randomly manipulated rider names, using those traditionally perceived to be white or Black, as well as profile pictures to observe drivers' behavior patterns in accepting and canceling rides. To illustrate support for LGBT rights, the authors overlaid a rainbow filter on the rider's picture profile. "We found that underrepresented minorities are more than twice as likely to have a ride canceled than Caucasians; that's about 3 percent versus 8 percent," Mejia said. "There was no evidence of gender bias." Mejia and Parker also varied times of ride requests to study whether peak price periods affected bias. They found that higher prices associated with peak times alleviated some of the bias against riders from the underrepresented group, but not against those who signal support for the LGBT community. They believe that ridesharing companies should use other data-driven solutions to take note of rider characteristics when a driver cancels and penalize the driver for biased behavior. One possible way to punish drivers is to move them down the priority list when they exhibit biased cancellation behavior, so they have fewer ride requests. Alternatively, less-punitive measures may provide "badges" for drivers who exhibit especially low cancellation rates for minority riders. But, ultimately, policymakers may need to intervene, Mejia said. "Investments in reducing bias may not occur organically, as ridesharing platforms are trying to maximize the number of participants in the platform -- they want to attract both riders and drivers," he said. "As a result, it may be necessary for policymakers to mandate what information can be provided to a driver to ensure an unbiased experience, while maintaining the safety of everyone involved, or to create policies that require ridesharing platforms to monitor and remove drivers based on biased behavior. "Careful attention should be paid to these policies both before and after implementation, as unintended consequences are almost sure to follow any simple fix."
Chatbots can ease medical providers' burden, offer trusted guidance to those with COVID-19 symptoms
COVID-19 has placed tremendous pressure on health care systems, not only for critical care but also from an anxious public looking for answers. Research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business found that chatbots -- software applications that conduct online chats via text or text-to-speech -- working for reputable organizations can ease the burden on medical providers and offer trusted guidance to those with symptoms. Researchers conducted an online experiment with 371 participants who viewed a COVID-19 screening session between a hotline agent -- chatbot or human -- and a user with mild or severe symptoms. They studied whether chatbots were seen as being persuasive, providing satisfying information that likely would be followed. Their results showed a slight negative bias against chatbots' ability, perhaps due to recent press reports. When the perceived ability is the same, however, participants reported that they viewed chatbots more positively than human agents, which is good news for health care organizations struggling to meet user demand for screening services. "The primary factor driving user response to screening hotlines -- human or chatbot -- is perceptions of the agent's ability," said Alan Dennis, the John T. Chambers Chair of Internet Systems at Kelley and corresponding author of the paper, "User reactions to COVID-19 screening chatbots from reputable providers." "When ability is the same, users view chatbots no differently or more positively than human agents." Other authors on the paper, forthcoming in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, are Antino Kim, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies at Kelley; and Sezgin Ayabakan, assistant professor of management information systems, and doctoral candidate Mohammad Rahimi, both at Temple University's Fox School of Business. Even before the pandemic, chatbots were identified as a technology that could speed up how people interact with researchers and find medical information online. "Chatbots are scalable, so they can meet an unexpected surge in demand when there is a shortage of qualified human agents," Dennis, Kim and their co-authors wrote, adding that chatbots "can provide round-the-clock service at a low operational cost. "This positive response may be because users feel more comfortable disclosing information to a chatbot, especially socially undesirable information, because a chatbot makes no judgment," researchers wrote. "The CDC, the World Health Organization, UNICEF and other health organizations caution that the COVID-19 outbreak has provoked social stigma and discriminatory behaviors against people of certain ethnic backgrounds, as well as those perceived to have been in contact with the virus. This is truly an unfortunate situation, and perhaps chatbots can assist those who are hesitant to seek help because of the stigma." The primary factor driving perceptions of ability was the user's trust in the provider of the screening hotline. "Proactively informing users of the chatbot's ability is important," the authors wrote. "Users need to understand that chatbots use the same up-to-date knowledge base and follow the same set of screening protocols as human agents. ... Because trust in the provider strongly influences perceptions of ability, building on the organization's reputation may also prove useful."
Virtual Reality-Based Surgical Simulations Could Make Patients Safer
Suvranu De, the director of the Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Imaging in Medicine at Rensselaer, has dedicated more than a decade of research to making surgery safer by developing virtual reality-based surgical training simulations that closely mimic the optics and haptics a surgeon may encounter in the operating room. A new $2.3 million grant from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health will further his research in this space, by supporting the development of a collaborative virtual reality-based surgical simulation environment that allows medical professionals to practice technical, cognitive, and interpersonal skills as a team. “People will be wearing head-mounted displays, and they will be immersed in a virtual operating room working on a virtual patient as a team,” De said. “We want to have an expert team in the operating room focused on the treatment of a patient, and not just a team of experts.” Conceptually, this approach is similar to crew resource management practiced by aviation pilots, which has led to a significant reduction in aircraft accidents. The Virtual Operating Room Team Experience (VORTeX) simulation system will provide realistic distractions, interruptions, and other stressors that medical professionals may encounter in an operating room. Traditionally, this type of simulation training has required mannequins, instructors, and a dedicated space, as well as significant coordination and resources. In contrast, the VORTeX system will be both distributed and asynchronous – allowing participants to join the simulation from different locations, and instructors to review the simulation and provide feedback at their convenience. Machine learning algorithms will be used to crunch the data and provide feedback to participants, who will be able to return to the virtual environment to review their performance. De is available to discuss how this type of virtual training is developed and implemented.
